Last week it was announced that June was the warmest June on record – making it the 14th consecutive month of a record being set. It comes at a time our government and many in the media remain wilfully resistant to efforts to combat climate change, and at a time when the data should worry everyone.

One of the best things about the election result has been the cabinet reshuffle, which has seen Greg Hunt no longer the minister for the environment.

I once called him the emptiest suit in the history of Australian politics, and maybe that was wrong because given how he exited the role, perhaps a better descriptor is the biggest troll in Australian politics.

On leaving the job Hunt, told reporters that “I feel as if my work is done.”

No minister for the environment could look at the data of global temperatures and think their work is done – especially if the majority of their work involved pushing the con of Direct Action onto the public.

The temperature data is now at such a point that it requires absurd levels of conspiracy theory to suggest climate change is not occurring.

Last week the US agencies, Nasa and Noaa announced the June figures. We shouldn’t be too shocked about them – according to Noaa it was the 14th consecutive month in which a new record had been set. The news from Nasa is not as horrible – June was just the ninth consecutive record-setting month.

About the best you can say about June is that at least it wasn’t as big a record as the previous months have been this year:

If this was just a one-off you wouldn’t get too worried. Monthly temperatures bounce around a bit – especially when weather events like El Nino are in play.

In 1998, for example a record global surface temperature for June of 0.77C above the 1950-1981 average came off the back of a strong El Nino system. That record lasted for 14 years – until last year when another strong El Nino came along. And despite those conditions dissipating, last month the record was broken again:

Looking at just one month – even going back to 1880 – can hide a lot of the story.

It’s when we start looking at averages of six to 12 months and longer that we really see the trends in all their blinding obviousness.

The global surface temperature for the first six months of this year averaged 1.1C above the 1951-80 average:

The first half of this year was not just warmest than ever on record, it was the warmest on record by a long way.

Since 1880, the record for the warmest first six months of a year has been set 14 times – half of them since 1980. The average increase in the record has been just 0.08C, and yet this year the record was broken by 0.28C:

And, I know, let’s calm the horses – look at the trend, not the records which only occur because of unusual weather systems.

Is a 50 year trend enough to cut through the noise? It sure as heck should be, and what it shows should be absolutely clear unless you have tripped over while reading this and your screen is now upside down:

And yet we have no strong push for a policy response. Instead we have media outlets publishing front page articles using slanted analysis to suggest renewable energy is causing electricity prices to sky rocket, and we have Greg Hunt all happy because his work was done.

And that work – fully supported by Malcolm Turnbull – was Direct Action, a policy designed not to do anything to combat the climate but only to appease climate change deniers.

We know Direct Action is a con.

We know this not just because of the excellent work done by Lenore Taylor prior to the election pointing out the targets under Direct Action are only achievable with an emission trading system that is implicitly in place and yet denied by Hunt. And we know it not just because much of the money spent on Direct Action is spent on things that would have been done anyway.

Hunt plays the long game on his glaringly obvious emissions trading scheme | Lenore Taylor

Read more

We really know it is a con because it is so bloody cheap.

No one thinks dealing with climate change is easy – even those who deny climate change exists argue against the massive cost involved in combating it.

So at an average of $637.5m a year that equals just 0.039% of GDP or 0.14% of annual government expenditure.

Is there anyone who thinks the whole reason governments around the world haven’t agreed to do something about climate change is because they didn’t want to spend around a tenth of one percent of their annual budget on it?

Governments love to sign a cheque and solve a problem. If Direct Action was all you needed to do, no one would be worried – it’d have been done without barely a whimper of controversy.

Now there is also the Renewable Energy Target – which was reduced while Hunt was environment minister – but the emissions reduction fund is the central plank of the government’s policy.

And the government tried to persuade us that for $637.5m a year they could dust their hands and say our work here is done? Even Donald Trump might blanch at such brazen contempt of the voting public.

And yeah I know, I love my graphs and I can get carried away by data.

But while I spend most of my time writing about economics, climate data is what hits me right in the gut. Because if the world keeps warming like it is, talking about GDP, and capital expenditure and interest rates, and our current housing affordability situation will all be rather quaint.

People will look back to this “new normal” of “low growth” and think, “Cripes, what a golden age”.

And we are not talking too far ahead either.

The agreed level we need to avoid is 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Nasa use the average of 1951-80 which is already around 0.3C higher. So that means the first six months of this year were 1.39C above pre-industrial levels.

But yeah, what about the trend? Stop trying to scare us with abnormal conditions!

When we extrapolate out the trend of the last 50 years, we get to that 2 degree mark by 2070:

Just 54 years away. As close to now as was 1962.

Think of that when you look at your daughter or grandson, or yourself in the mirror should you too be hoping to still be around in 54 years time.

Now ok, maybe I’m being extremist – after all the past 50 years might have been a bad 50 years. What about since 1998 – we all know since then warming has slowed down – some would say stopped.

Well if you start the trend from August 1998 – when the 12 month average was at its peak that year, we do get a bit more time till we hit 2C – a whole 10 extra years:

And remember this is assuming the trend from here on is linear – which given where we are at today is pretty conservative.